It's really easy to respond to a story like this with a knee-jerk "SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" but it strikes me as completely insane that we're giving soldiers danger pay in the first place. The job description is to shoot and be shot at. Do firefighters get bonuses if there's an unusually high number of fires? Ruling out overtime, just if they work a 40 hour week, and in the average week spend 20 hours fighting fires and 20 hours on call... if that ratio changes to 30/10, do they get paid more? Would that provide an incentive to take one's time putting out a fire?
I'm grateful to anyone who's putting their lives on the line so that I can tell dick jokes on the internet. I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards them being generously compensated while doing there work, and cared for when they return home. If they were accidentally paid more than they were promised, it's reasonable to expect repayment of the difference, but the only reason this happened was a pay cut that shouldn't have happened in the first place. Of course, this is what happens when you cut taxes but want to maintain balanced budgets... you need to reduce costs somewhere. Boosting the military has long been the wheelhouse of the right, and I'm not above admitting I get a little schadenfreude at the situation.
If the cost of getting Keystone XL approved is the implementation of a carbon tax, I suspect I'll get a little more.